Rule Proposal: Catch-And-Release Tiger Musky Record

[Ski]

Well, I guess I should finally put in my 2 cents since I brought this up to Don a while back. I have to agree with adding a CPR record in addition to the current weight record. I think this is the best start to eliminating killing a fish to prove it is a record.

Length should be the only factor for the new CPR category. I think everyone would agree that length best represents a bigger fish and I think those supporting CPR would agree. Also, there is little room to cheat on length with the stipulations Don proposed. I am a fan of the KISS principle - Keep It Simple Stupid.

I would love to see muskies be CPR only but I don't think it would get the support quite yet. Maybe after a few years of successful new CPR tiger musky records things will change. I believe the old record will be broken soon and it will come from Tapps, Merwin or Curlew - probably Tapps because it is getting the most pressure and has 50 plus inch fish there now. It would be a shame to see a new record come out before the rule change/addition and the fish gets killed. Not to take anything away from the old record, but it will soon be forgotten anyway. I hate to see muskies killed when graphite reproductions are so good and relative in price to an actual mount. Even if the fish is near the end of its life at 50" - letting it go after a successful CPR with the chance it could grow another inch or 2 is worth it in my mind - every single time!

Thanks Don for everything you are doing and of course Mark, you are a true role model for putting the WA state tiger musky fishery interests first!

[Don Wittenberger]

OK, let me throw this out for discussion, because I think it's a game changer. Over the last 30 years, the entire musky world has moved dramatically away from catch-and-kill to C&R. Even in Wisconsin, which still has a 34-inch minimum size, voluntary C&R by anglers results in 99% of all muskies being released. That's remarkable considering Wisconsin has 700+ muskie lakes and tens of thousands of people fish for muskies there. The same thing is happening in all the other states with muskie fisheries. People have come to realize the species, even supported by stocking, exists in such low numbers that any harvest hurts the sport.

Given the trends everywhere else, it's just common sense to move our state record completely away from weight and totally to C&R, in order to help move the thinking and mentality of the people fishing for tiger muskies in our state away from harvest to release. Our tiger muskie fishery, and public attitudes toward it, are in transition. If we retain any vestige of the old catch-and-keep habits in our sport during this critical period of rapid growth in popularity of our sport, it will take many years to get rid of those outdated habits and possibly we'll never be able to get rid of them.

What better opportunity to discard the weight-based record than when the existing record has a cloud over it? That's why I want to do this now. If someone catches a legitimate record, it's going to be very hard if not impossible, to get rid of the weight-based record and the kill-and-weigh mentality that goes with it. It's much easier to supplant a tainted record than a legitimate one.

Talking about the existing record is ticklish, because nobody can prove anything, and in this country we consider people innocent until proven guilty. Let's start with what we know. Two guys went out on Mayfield Lake and an hour later brought back two 30 lb.-plus fish which they said were caught on sand shrimp. Now let's add some background facts. Mayfield has crystal clear water. These fish were caught on the Tilton flat, where the water is shallow and you can easily see fish, especially big fish. Based on my own experience, I know that when tiger muskies are lethargic, you can park a boat right on top of them and they won't move -- I've done it many times.

OK, what's the picture? The two biggest tiger muskies ever caught in Washington state, up to that time, supposedly were caught within an hour of each other, at the same spot in the same lake, by two guys fishing together in the same boat, on the same bait. That by itself is implausible, although not impossible. That these big fish went after shrimp also stretches credulity. Now let's add the fact that professional biologists working in WDFW's warmwater fisheries program believe these fish were snagged. How do I know this? Because they told me. Why would they tell me, an outsider, a member of the public? Obviously, because they feel strongly about it. So who do believe? The fishermen, or the biologists? I don't know the truth, I'm not accusing anyone, it's just my personal opinion that this record is questionable. It's one thing for fishermen to argue among themselves over the legitimacy of this or that fishing record. It's a horse of a different color when the professional biologists who run the fisheries program for the state agency that certifies official fishing records believe a record is illegitimate. That puts a cloud over it. It may or may not be a valid record, but in the world of fishing records, credibility is everything. That's why so much emphasis is put on verification.

Would I do things differently if the existing record wasn't in question? I'll admit that taking a legitimate record away from an honest angler would be a gut-wrenching thing to do. But I'd still want to have only a C&R record in order to get all tiger muskie anglers to think "catch and release." Weight-based records are rooted in a time when most people fished for the dinner table. We don't live in a subsistence economy anymore, and haven't for several generations. There simply aren't enough fish in our waters to feed our human population. I have no problem with catching abundant species to eat, such as walleyes, smallmouth bass, and panfish. But tiger muskies are so scarce that their recreational value far outweighs anything to be gained from harvesting them. They should be used for that, and nothing else. I'm not suggesting the concept of having only a C&R record be extended to any other fish species. Not at all. The need for this is unique to the tiger muskie fishery, and it should stop there. But it's something we need to do for the future of the tiger muskie sport in our state, while it's still possible to do it.

[Anonymous]

Actually, Don, Wisconsin has been raising their limits in the last few years: A 50-inch minimum size limit is currently in effect on four inland lakes and the waters of Green Bay, and there may be a bunch more lakes with a 50-inch limit next season.
http://www.wisconsinsportsmanmag.com/fi ... _aa086003a
Shabbona-48", Lake & Willow Creek - 48", Henderson, Knox, McDonough, Mercer and Warren counties all 42". Storey Lake, Deep Lake & Sterling Lake all 42". There is talk of pushing the Green Bay to 54".

I would like to see the girth incorporated into the equation, just because we all know it is a better indicator of the real size. We have seen the long skinny ski's that do not look as healthy as their fat sleek cousins, even if an inch shorter. But the question of how to get an accurate measure without opening the door to "exaggerations" would be a problem. I'm sure there are smarter minds than mine out there that will come up with that plan, and probably have already.
I do very strongly agree that we need to get away from the weight based record for the simple reason that there has been much "creativity" in that realm, also. Ice cubes, sand, even metal weights stuffed down a fish's gullet have all been documented.
It never ceases to amaze me what some anglers will do in the name of "sport".
Even tho I still consider myself a beginner muskie angler, I have already made a decison if a 50 plus should ever grace my net. There would be a picture and I, the fish and God will know and that wil be the end of it. If any of you have ever spent much time on MuskyHunter forums, you know that the quickest way to be called a liar and to subject yourself to months of ridicule and suspect argument is to lay claim to a record fish. non mihi

But, to each his own. And Always: It is none of my business if anyone keeps a legal fish.

Back to the C&R; surely we don't need to reinvent the wheel; other places must have C&R already on their books: Muskies Inc. should be able to help with that info especially regarding regs in MN & WI. Jim Bunch at the Lunge Log could be a starting point. You can reach him at jbunch@charter.net
Thanks to Don and Ski and all those that support this; we got the 50 " reg changed quickly I see no reason why this cannot be accomplished, too. Together, all of us have a strong voice; amazing things can happen.
Don let me know if I can help at M.I.

[Don Wittenberger]

Here are a few more thoughts I have on the issue of using girth. Once again, I am tossing this out for discussion; my mind isn't made up, and I want to hear what other people have to say.

Girth is a variable measurement. By that I mean, the same fish's girth can change, depending on when during the season you catch it, and/or whether it has eaten recently. Let me offer a hypothetical example. Let's say Fisherman A catches a 49-inch muskie in October of 2009 that has a 25-inch girth. This fish becomes the record. In the spring of 2010, Fisherman B catches the same fish which is now 50 1/2 inches but only has a 23-inch girth, because it's been living on its body fat all winter. We all know spring fish are skinnier, right? So who caught the biggest fish, and who should be the record holder, Fisherman A or Fisherman B?

Let's take another example. Assume two tiger muskies: Fish 1 is 49 inches with a 23-inch girth, and Fish 2 is 48 inches with a 22-inch girth. Both fish are caught the same day, but Fish 2 ate a 5-pound squawfish just before it was caught, and now has a 25-inch girth. Which fish should be the record? Should Fish 2 win, even though it's smaller than Fish 1, because its stomach contents temporarily make it fatter?

This is a problem with weight-based records, too. From the beginning of fish records, the conventional method of weighing a fish has been to count what's in its stomach as part of the fish. Ask yourself this question: If a fisherman catches a 58-pound muskie that just ate a 6-pound walleye, is it a 58-lb. fish or a 64-lb. fish? It has always been considered a 64-lb. fish. So, to my mind, even the weight records in angling history are arbitrary. In addition, we now know (thanks to recent forensic work by fishing historians) that many of the historical all-tackle muskie world record holders cheated the scale; an awful lot of the recorded 60-pounders got that way with the help of wet sand, ice cubes, window sash weights, and other artificial additions to their body mass.

Simplicity has its attractions. A 52-inch fish beats a 51-inch fish, period. No arguments over loose measuring tapes around the midsection or bulging bellies from 10 lbs. of recently-eaten squawfish. The way I've written the rule, a 52-incher won't get beaten by a 51-incher simply because it was caught in the spring instead of the fall, or because the 51-incher just ate a big squawfish.

As I said, I'm just throwing these thoughts out there for discussion.

[Dex]

Very interesting read Don....

I'll stick with my first comet; I really don't care about the final outcome of this. I firmly that however the final law is written it's going to be better than no rule at all. You know as well as I do that you’re never going to please everyone, but we have no such rule in place and we need one sooner rather later.

Thanks Don.

[Rich McVey]

Maybe Im just to much of a newbie, or Im missing something.

This thread is addressing the potential changes in how a record fish is recorded, but some people are turning it into, the right of a human to kill or not kill an animal simply for bragging rights.

Unless you have a couple trained/experienced MUSKY anglers taking the measurements... girth and weight can be vary hard, if not deadly, on a Musky. Length measurements with good photos should be fine.

If your so into the whole record and bragging thing, then buy a nice vid cam and keep a certified judge on the boat.

I would NEVER support killing an animal for a record book or so I could brag about it.

Since all Tiger Musky are here because we paid for them and they have no means of self sustaining their population... Muskies should not be retained regardless of their size, trophy or not. IMO.

[Don Wittenberger]

Ray, so-called "bragging rights" are entrenched in our culture, and won't be easy to change. Some of us have moved beyond that, and fish purely for enjoyment, and could care less about beating out the next guy. I count myself in that category. I think a time will come when fishing records in general will be recognized as anachronisms we can do without, but we're not there yet. Einstein once said the only way you can get new theories of physics accepted is to wait for the believers of the old theories to die off. Every generation thinks differently, and the young lead the old to new ways of thinking and doing things. Young anglers coming up behind us will change this sport and how it's practiced, just as the young anglers of 30 years ago who created C&R did. This applies not only to fishing but everything else in life, too. Bill Gates was still a high school kid when he began changing how the world processes information.

[Morpheous]

Sounds like we have scholors on this web site.

Im not familiar with these Muskies, Pike, or Tiger Muskies. These arguments dont seem to come up with Trout and Bass. Is it a population thing?

My 2 cents:

Competition is partially about "Being the Best" or the persuite of that. Yea, there are certain things you can do to improve you catch rate. But is it skill or luck that the record fish grabbed your lure? Was the fish hungry or just ate? Good arguements.

I dont weigh or measure the fish I catch, the pics are good enough. Then again I dont do tournaments either.

Personally, and this is not meant to be insulting. Do Muskie anglers consider these things like children? It kinda seems so. Just asking.

[Don Wittenberger]

Muskies are different from other fish species because they exist in very low numbers. Our sport can't exist unless everyone puts them back in the water.

I've been a lawyer for 35 years, and based on my experience with interpersonal conflicts, I don't believe muskie anglers argue about things any more or less than human beings in general. If you wish to call people "children" because they disagree on some things, then it applies to the entire human race.

[Morpheous]

If you wish to call people "children" because they disagree on some things, then it applies to the entire human race.

No, Not at all. What I said was "Do Muskie anglers consider these things like children?"

I wasnt calling anyone a child, I was refering to the fish as the child. The Muskie anglers seem to take a personal interst in the fish as if it were their own child.

[Anonymous]

This thread is addressing the potential changes in how a record fish is recorded, but some people are turning it into, the right of a human to kill or not kill an animal simply for bragging rights. scratch

Who were you referring to?

[Rich McVey]

This thread is addressing the potential changes in how a record fish is recorded, but some people are turning it into, the right of a human to kill or not kill an animal simply for bragging rights. scratch

Who were you referring to?

Was the general feel of the conversation. Felt like some people are more concerned with a record and their right to break it or have their name attached to it. I agree with Don, as in, do whats best for the fish, and pulling it out of the water to weigh, and measure girth, on top of the length and photo might be unnecessary. If you dont have an official judge there, how are you going to prove you got the biggest fish?

I sure dont want someone putting it on ice and draggin it to the officials office!

Nuff Said, See you Thursday.

[KUP]

Ray: Glad to hear you and I agree. Look forward to seeing you Thursday, remember, its the Big Raffle Draw. You can still buy tickets there....and now to return to our sponsor... sorry, Don

[seament head]

morpheous you sound so familiar, do we know you by another name?:batman:

I agree with you Dex, Don, "you are a smart man in this arena, and I trust your judgement, beside any rule is better than the one we currently have on the books"

[Morpheous]

morpheous you sound so familiar, do we know you by another name?:batman:

I agree with you Dex, Don, "you are a smart man in this arena, and I trust your judgement, beside any rule is better than the one we currently have on the books"

Um, some of you know me as Jeff. Well now I guess you all do.

[Don Wittenberger]

I stand corrected. As muskie anglers, we're trying to be good stewards of a fragile resource, and perhaps the care we bestow on these fish makes us look like doting parents. What we're trying to do is preserve their limited population so we can have fun catching them. There are only about 3,000 to 5,000 tiger muskies in Washington state.

[Rich McVey]

Well stated Don.

Morpheous, I can see where your comming from. Musky anglers are passionate about our species. In my local waters we have or had an issue with people killing them needlesly. I dont know if I would go as far as to call them children, but we do care alot about them.

I mean really, Id never beat a Musky but my kid...


JUST KIDDING CODY!!!

[Rich McVey]

Sad Day. Came across a Musky yesturday and it had passed. I figgure it was about 32 inches. The stripes were pretty faded. Looked like it was a healthy fish, before hand anyway.

[Ski]

Don,

Just wanted to let you know the proposal you gave to Mark was addressed at our meeting Tuesday night. I am confident to report the overall consensus was that you can count on CMA's support!

[blufin loui]

Just wanted to toss a bunch of kudos out to all you musky & pike fishermen & women on the forum. Even though I haven't caught one of these toothy critters (even by accident), it is great to read the interchange of ideas, concerns, and plans for the future of the fishery, and even the occassional disagreements. "Most" all species of fish will have advocates to some degree (and that is as it should be), but you guys are putting enormous amounts of effort, resources, and yourselves into improving the area of your passions for the benifit of all, the fishery, and the future. You guys are awsome in that regard. You guys as a whole, with all the varied ideas, are a very strong community, and I applaud your efforts and dedication.
We as a people can agree on a few things all the time, agree on most things some of the time, but agreeing on everthing all the time ain't gonna happen. So keep up the great work folks, and just wanted y'all to know there are non-participants out here that appreciate your efforts.
Thanks Guys.